Building Limit in Camarillo Seen as Test Case for Cities

A court case challenging the validity of Camarillo’s voter-approved growth-control ordinance now awaits a ruling by the state Supreme Court, and the questions posed cast a legal shadow over similar initiatives adopted by voters throughout California.

The Camarillo law limits new housing construction to 400 units a year. Not affected is subsidized housing for low-income residents. The 400 units are parceled out to developers after their proposals are rated, in part, on plans to mitigate a project’s impact on traffic, schools and sewers.

Since the initiative’s passage in June, 1981, Camarillo has weathered five builders’ lawsuits challenging the law’s legality. In the sixth and presumably final suit, the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California lost in rulings in Ventura County Superior Court and the state Court of Appeal, but appealed to the state Supreme Court. The case was argued before the high court in Los Angeles on Jan. 6; there is no indication when a ruling might be made.

The case is being closely watched in Moorpark, where a ballot initiative restricting new-dwelling construction to 250 units a year is slated for November. Slow-growth advocates there tailored their measure after the Camarillo law so that it would pass the same court tests Camarillo has faced.

Communities Join Fight

Camarillo has received legal backing from several California cities where residents, worried about the sprawl of housing subdivisions during the building boom of the 1970s and early 1980s, went to the ballot box to support growth limits. A building association victory would set the stage for a series of new court challenges by developers.

The core of Camarillo’s ordinance is not at issue. The constitutional basis for growth curbs was established in 1976 when the U. S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that upheld a growth plan for Petaluma, a small city near San Francisco.

Debate, instead, centers on the interpretation of a section of the state’s Evidence Code requiring that, when city councils establish a growth-control ordinance later tested in court, they must prove that the curbs were necessary for the protection of public welfare and safety. Growth moratoriums with a fixed period, such as one in Simi Valley, are exempted.

The Legislature approved the section in 1981 in light of concerns that development limits crimped the state’s stock of affordable housing.

Builders’ Strategy

Lawyers for the building industry contend that growth curbs passed in voter initiatives, even over the objections of a city council, should meet the same tough standards for land-use laws as those approved directly by the city.

But attorneys for Camarillo argue that the builders’ interpretation would hobble the people’s right to approve legislation by initiative, which is granted by the state Constitution.

“It could make it impossible to have initiatives withstand challenges in any other field,” declared Katherine E. Stone, a Los Angeles attorney who represents the Ventura County city of 45,000 residents.

“It’s a chilling effect on the ballot box and the right of initiative,” added Mark Sellers, Thousand Oaks city attorney. “It’s difficult to put the city in a position of defending what the voters decided to do.”

Thousand Oaks filed a court brief in support of Camarillo on Jan. 21. Joining the brief were other local governments having growth limits by initiative, including San Diego, Pacifica, Morgan Hill, Redlands, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County.

Yet, as the city’s lawyers express confidence that the state high court will rule in favor of Camarillo’s position, another panel of the state Court of Appeal recently came to the opposite conclusion.

The ruling came after a developer sued the city of Monterey Park, challenging the validity of its voter-approved growth limits.

Municipalities must assume the burden of proof if their growth laws come under attack, the panel said.

Monterey Park has asked the state Supreme Court to hear an appeal, suggesting that the court may weigh arguments in both cases before issuing rulings on either one.

The San Gabriel Valley city has argued that the law forcing cities to prove that growth restrictions are “necessary” to protect public health and welfare is unconstitutional because it requires a higher standard of proof than what earlier cases have called for, said Thomas F. Winfield, special litigation attorney for Monterey Park.

Builders’ representatives, however, say that in both Monterey Park’s and Camarillo’s cases, there is no substantive difference between growth ordinances approved by voters or the city council.

“The same standards should apply,” said Oxnard attorney Stanley E. Cohen, who presented the builders’ case against Camarillo. “It requires cities to deal with regional housing requirements.”

If the builders association wins, the Camarillo case would revert to Ventura County Superior Court for trial, and city officials would have to attempt to show that the 1981 vote was necessary to preserve public welfare and safety.

As evidence, Camarillo would need to draw comparisons between housing demand and supply under the ordinance, account for steps the city has taken to ease regional housing problems and supply expert testimony on the effects of residential development on city services, Cohen said.

Costly Defense

Although such a trial by no means assures the builders of victory, it would mean another difficult and expensive court case, attorneys for the city say. Camarillo has already spent about $150,000 defending an ordinance that, at the time of voters’ passage, was opposed by four of five council members.

The legal challenge, ironically, has continued even though local builders have opted not to use all the housing units granted them under the ordinance.

The initiative was approved after development in Camarillo peaked in the late 1970s at 1,400 dwelling units per year.

In the five years the limit has been in effect, all 2,000 housing allotments have been distributed. But, reflecting a slow real-estate market, developers have only taken out building permits for 64% of those units, leaving unused about 720 allotments, said Larry Davis, Camarillo’s assistant planning director.

Each year, the city receives requests for about 1,000 housing-unit allotments from a field of developers, Davis said.